[PATCH] Remove unused exp_opcodes

[PATCH] Remove unused exp_opcodes

[Sergio Durigan Junior]

Hi,

This trivial patch removes unused entries in the `enum exp_opcode'.

The rationale is: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-05/msg00666.html

No regressions on x86, x86_64 and x86_64/-m32 (compile farm).

Ok to apply?

-- 
Sergio Durigan Junior
Red Hat

2010-06-01  Sergio Durigan Junior  <sergiodj@redhat.com>

	* expprint.c (print_subexp_standard): Remove exp_opcodes BINOP_INCL,
	BINOP_EXCL.
	(op_name_standard): Remove exp_opcodes BINOP_INCL, BINOP_EXCL,
	UNOP_LOWER, UNOP_UPPER, UNOP_LENGTH.
	(dump_subexp_body_standard): Remove exp_opcodes BINOP_INCL,
	BINOP_EXCL, UNOP_LOWER, UNOP_UPPER, UNOP_LENGTH, UNOP_CARD,
	UNOP_CHMAX, UNOP_CHMIN.
	* expression.h (enum exp_opcode) <BINOP_INCL, BINOP_EXCL,
	UNOP_LOWER, UNOP_UPPER, UNOP_LENGTH, UNOP_CARD, UNOP_CHMAX,
	UNOP_CHMIN>: Remove opcodes.

diff --git a/gdb/expprint.c b/gdb/expprint.c
index 7299d64..ee9b4f9 100644
--- a/gdb/expprint.c
+++ b/gdb/expprint.c
@@ -532,10 +532,6 @@ print_subexp_standard (struct expression *exp, int *pos,
       fprintf_unfiltered (stream, ")");
       return;
 
-    case BINOP_INCL:
-    case BINOP_EXCL:
-      error (_("print_subexp:  Not implemented."));
-
       /* Default ops */
 
     default:
@@ -714,10 +710,6 @@ op_name_standard (enum exp_opcode opcode)
       return "BINOP_ASSIGN_MODIFY";
     case BINOP_VAL:
       return "BINOP_VAL";
-    case BINOP_INCL:
-      return "BINOP_INCL";
-    case BINOP_EXCL:
-      return "BINOP_EXCL";
     case BINOP_CONCAT:
       return "BINOP_CONCAT";
     case BINOP_RANGE:
@@ -780,12 +772,6 @@ op_name_standard (enum exp_opcode opcode)
       return "UNOP_POSTDECREMENT";
     case UNOP_SIZEOF:
       return "UNOP_SIZEOF";
-    case UNOP_LOWER:
-      return "UNOP_LOWER";
-    case UNOP_UPPER:
-      return "UNOP_UPPER";
-    case UNOP_LENGTH:
-      return "UNOP_LENGTH";
     case UNOP_PLUS:
       return "UNOP_PLUS";
     case UNOP_CAP:
@@ -952,8 +938,6 @@ dump_subexp_body_standard (struct expression *exp,
     case BINOP_INTDIV:
     case BINOP_ASSIGN_MODIFY:
     case BINOP_VAL:
-    case BINOP_INCL:
-    case BINOP_EXCL:
     case BINOP_CONCAT:
     case BINOP_IN:
     case BINOP_RANGE:
@@ -982,12 +966,6 @@ dump_subexp_body_standard (struct expression *exp,
     case UNOP_MIN:
     case UNOP_ODD:
     case UNOP_TRUNC:
-    case UNOP_LOWER:
-    case UNOP_UPPER:
-    case UNOP_LENGTH:
-    case UNOP_CARD:
-    case UNOP_CHMAX:
-    case UNOP_CHMIN:
       elt = dump_subexp (exp, stream, elt);
       break;
     case OP_LONG:
diff --git a/gdb/expression.h b/gdb/expression.h
index 29ebde4..a6f966a 100644
--- a/gdb/expression.h
+++ b/gdb/expression.h
@@ -108,8 +108,6 @@ enum exp_opcode
 
     /* Modula-2 standard (binary) procedures */
     BINOP_VAL,
-    BINOP_INCL,
-    BINOP_EXCL,
 
     /* Concatenate two operands, such as character strings or bitstrings.
        If the first operand is a integer expression, then it means concatenate
@@ -279,9 +277,6 @@ enum exp_opcode
     UNOP_ODD,
     UNOP_TRUNC,
 
-    /* (The deleted) Chill builtin functions.  */
-    UNOP_LOWER, UNOP_UPPER, UNOP_LENGTH, UNOP_CARD, UNOP_CHMAX, UNOP_CHMIN,
-
     OP_BOOL,			/* Modula-2 builtin BOOLEAN type */
     OP_M2_STRING,		/* Modula-2 string constants */
 

Re: [PATCH] Remove unused exp_opcodes

[Joel Brobecker]

> 2010-06-01  Sergio Durigan Junior  <sergiodj@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* expprint.c (print_subexp_standard): Remove exp_opcodes BINOP_INCL,
> 	BINOP_EXCL.
> 	(op_name_standard): Remove exp_opcodes BINOP_INCL, BINOP_EXCL,
> 	UNOP_LOWER, UNOP_UPPER, UNOP_LENGTH.
> 	(dump_subexp_body_standard): Remove exp_opcodes BINOP_INCL,
> 	BINOP_EXCL, UNOP_LOWER, UNOP_UPPER, UNOP_LENGTH, UNOP_CARD,
> 	UNOP_CHMAX, UNOP_CHMIN.
> 	* expression.h (enum exp_opcode) <BINOP_INCL, BINOP_EXCL,
> 	UNOP_LOWER, UNOP_UPPER, UNOP_LENGTH, UNOP_CARD, UNOP_CHMAX,
> 	UNOP_CHMIN>: Remove opcodes.

Thanks for doing that cleanup. This patch is OK.

I'll confess that I am not quite sure whether you're supposed to close
the '<' at the end of the line, or whether it can continue on the next
line like you did. I don't think it's a huge deal, but we can fix that
if someone knows and it turns out to be wrong...

-- 
Joel

Re: [PATCH] Remove unused exp_opcodes

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:

Joel> I'll confess that I am not quite sure whether you're supposed to close
Joel> the '<' at the end of the line, or whether it can continue on the next
Joel> line like you did. I don't think it's a huge deal, but we can fix that
Joel> if someone knows and it turns out to be wrong...

I wouldn't worry about it at all.
As long as the names are spelled right I don't think the details of the
syntax matter.

Tom

Re: [PATCH] Remove unused exp_opcodes

[Sergio Durigan Junior]

On Tuesday 01 June 2010 18:59:26, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Thanks for doing that cleanup. This patch is OK.

Thank you, Joel.  The patch has been commited.

> I'll confess that I am not quite sure whether you're supposed to close
> the '<' at the end of the line, or whether it can continue on the next
> line like you did. I don't think it's a huge deal, but we can fix that
> if someone knows and it turns out to be wrong...

I actually used this entry as an example:

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2010-06/msg00003.html

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio Durigan Junior
Red Hat